Looks like the experts don't think too highly of the Blazers and also don't watch many Blazer games. Babbitt and Armon Johnson ahead of Elliott Williams is quite funny, as is Nolan Smith being so high. It looks like Joel Freeland has not cracked the top 500 and that only 2 Blazers rank in the top 100.

Moonbeam wrote: It looks like Joel Freeland has not cracked the top 500 .

I'm pretty sure that the list of 500 players is chosen by ESPN and that the "experts" only decide the order of these 500 guys. If Freeland isn't in the list, it would be because ESPN forgot about him (!), not because he's not good enough.

Clearly, Freeland is better than some guys on this list and should have been in the top 500.Seeing him in the top 100 clearly would be a real surprise. The most likely situation is that someone at ESPN did an awful job listing the 500 candidates.

I am surprised to see Claver ranked over Freeland. Maybe the voting done before Freeland was signed. I was surprised to see Elliot Williams so low, but it appears that isn't going to change any time soon. Unproven youth is ranked low, and the Blazers have a lot of that. I don't think that is a surprise to anyone.

Wickzki wrote:Only three players in the top 150 (30 x 5 = 150). Effectively the experts believe two of our starters are bench quality players.3 players ranked 151-300 (30 x 5 x 2 = 300). Effectively the experts believe only SIX of our players are NBA rotation quality players.I believe we're underrated. I don't think we're a good NBA team but believe that we have more than six rotation (or better) quality players.

Portland's team is really young and the rookies are usually ranked pretty badly.Most of them go up at least 100 ranks in the following year.Saying that Lillard is not a starting caliber PG seems a bit strange. We don't know if he will be a star or not but it's quite sure that he is good enough to start in the NBA.Same for Meyers Leonard, a lottery pick should be, at least, a rotation player